User talk:Mobility99
Controversies
[edit]Discuss this on the talk page. Do not re-add this as there are multiple problems with it. freshacconci talktalk 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, how many accounts do you use? There are a number of account names containing 99 that have edited on the OCADU article. You are to use one account, otherwise you will be blocked for sockpuppetry. freshacconci talktalk 14:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• So, you have no intention of responding to my comments or discussing the issue on the article talk page, and will keep reverting me, violating WP:3RR amongst a few other policies. Consider this a warning. Further violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines may get you blocked, not to mention the probable sockpuppetry. And in the end, it's a huge waste if your time as that controversies section won't remain in the long run. freshacconci talktalk 14:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've actually written on the article talk page.
You are quite rude and a bully.
- What the hell is your problem? I have asked you many times to discuss this issue and you finally decide to discuss it, yet you once again add the section back into the article. You do understand that since the section is poorly written, and has many other problems, it won't stay there, right? And don't whine about bullying. I'm trying to engage with you and all you do is ignore my suggestions, refuse to discuss it, edit war and refuse to acknowledge actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Pointing this out to you is not bullying. And you still haven't responded to the sockpuppet issue. How many accounts do you use? freshacconci talktalk 14:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
lol, take a chill pill. I'm sorry I don't just sit at my computer all day like you do.
- Actually, it looks like you do. But your comment shows just how little you regard the point of all this. In any case, another editor has now weighed in. Should I start the sockpuppety case or not? Are you going to stick to this one account or are you going to disappear and come back in a few months as Ocadu99? freshacconci talktalk 14:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- And now, after another editor has warned you, you re-add the same horribly written text? What part of collaboration and discussion do you fail to grasp? freshacconci talktalk 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If you have a problem, then edit it and rewrite it.
Oh, and learn some manners.
May 2013
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Read what I wrote and read what is in the article. There is no personal analysis.
- I am trying to give you some friendly advice. You have already been blocked. You will be blocked again if you continue to edit in this manner. Be civil to other editors. Do not edit war. Discuss changes you want to make on the talk page. More than a few editors have warned you now. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia you have to work within the rules, just like the rest of us. This is not your personal website. freshacconci talktalk 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
One other editor, who looks like your friend.
2. You began the edit war instead of improving the article.
3. Learn what "a few" means
4. How many people have complained about you on your talk page?
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Freshacconci, you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci talktalk 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Colin Campbell (artist), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at OCAD University, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. freshacconci talktalk 22:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at OCAD University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. freshacconci talktalk 22:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have actually attempted to address ALL of the issues you have raised.
Instead of EDITING what you claim to be errors, you and your friend have just BLANKED my contribution.
This is wrong and two-faced.
It is also NOT the first time you have done this to other users
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Mobility99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The user that started an edit war with me did not follow usual protocal. Normal protocol is to edit the article. The user did not edit the article. Instead, the user blanked out my contribution. When I edited the contribution to satisfy the user, he BLANKED THAT AS WELL. In all this time, the user has NEVER contributed, other than to blank. The user deleted my contributions repeatedly, insulted me, and did not try to improve it. The user ignored how I responded to him quickly and expected my knowledge of wiki to be on his level. The user was rude when I pointed out how unreasonable he was to expect immediate replies. The user communicated to me through "giving reasons for edit", and got me blocked for also communicating through "giving reasons for edit". If you look at the history log, you will see that I have tried to address the concerns the user brought up. However, the user has NOT MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION other than to blank my entries. This goes back to me point that the user did not follow protocol. If I am blocked, fine. But you are ignoring your own disute resolution process by allowing users to whitewash contributions instead of improving on them. This is unfair in principle, but it also violates wikipedia's own code. Mobility99 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry you're having a content dispute. The key is to resolve your dispute on the article's talk page in lieu of repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version. Edit warring at AIV is an extremely poor decision; there are many administrators watching that page. Until you understand the reason for your block and resolve to limit yourself to discussion of your diputed edits, I can't imagine unblocking. Kuru (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Does that explain why you intentionally removed the top of WP:AIV four times? Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 23:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Mobility99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you to Kuru for being the first editor to take a balanced view. E will agree that edit warring at AIV was a mistake. But I will say that I add hoped that an editor would have noticed what I was trying to do and correct it. I think this was very obvious and it is very easy for editors to sanction and criticize instead of help users. Kuru wrote that I repeatedly reverted to my own version. I think this is unfair. I put in time and effort to finding the links for what I wrote. I can understand a user changing what I wrote. But it's wrong for a user to just delete the whole thing and also insult me on how I wrote. I will also say that the user did not follow wiki guidelines. I believe that if the shoe were on the other foot, other editors would rule against me, even though we did the exact same thing. This is wrong and proves that wiki is not a community, but a closed old boys club. Also, you editors like to refer to editors watching. But no one has actually told me where I can go to complain. You're very good at following your own procedures, but not at giving that same information to other people. Nice.this does not sound like a "community" to me. My main complaint, which I know doesn't support the appeal but no editor has actually told me where to go, are rude comments by the editors freshacconi and elkevbo. I am more interested in knowing if there is a complaint process against user's and if this is accessible to regular users than being unblocked. I don't think there is one. Wiki has no guidelines on being polite and not being rude. It's very easy to be rude to other user's whose writing and opinions you don't respect, when you know all the rules and all of the process. Mobility99 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Failure to even address sockpuppetry allegations, as noted below. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you want to get unblocked, why am I finding this and this? If you feel that other editors are being rude to you, lashing back at them isn't going to help your credibility any further. You asked for helpful advice. Well, here it is. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Mobility99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is why I should be unblocked.
I have addressed, or tried to address the issues other users brought up. I have acknowledged the complaints brought against me, including sock puttery. But this is only for the accounts after I started this one, not before. I did not adequately respond to rudeness, insults to my writing, violations of wiki policy and that has led to me being blocked. I need to be unblocked to make those complaints to the offensive users.
I have continued to make my case here, despite editors like Cncmaster not specifically providing any advice on how to specifically address complaints of rudeness and abuse.
Mobility99 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Mobility99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is why I should be unblocked.
I have addressed, or tried to address the issues other users brought up. I have acknowledged the complaints brought against me, including sock puttery. But this is only for the accounts after I started this one, not before. I did not adequately respond to rudeness, insults to my writing, violations of wiki policy and that has led to me being blocked. I need to be unblocked to make those complaints to the offensive users.
Mobility99 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the issue of your sockpuppetry, which you appear to concede as a fact in this unblock request. Nor do you appear to understand what has been wrong with your editing, both in article-space and in user talk-space. An unblock is unlikely unless all of these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the community.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mobility99, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
freshacconci talktalk 00:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mobility99, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
freshacconci talktalk 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mobility99, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
freshacconci talktalk 00:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mobility99, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.